Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popular Unity (Italy, 2022)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Popular Unity (Italy, 2022)}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Popular Unity (Italy, 2022)}})

No reliable independent sources talk about this, and there is of course no extensive coverage about it. So this definitely does not meet the general notability guidelines. Yakme (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Yakme (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-written and definitely encyclopedic article, started by User:Broncoviz, on a coalition of political parties in Italy. --Checco (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

::Well-written? It's a total of 3-4 lines. Anyway, not justified by reliable sources nor by notability criteria. Yakme (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• Keep It's a list that will take part in the upcoming election in Italy. Although their meeting at the Chamber of the Deputies was followed only by Varese7Press, I think the list is relevant for the italian politics.--Broncoviz (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

::No crystal-balling on Wikipedia. The list still has not taken part to any election, nor filed candidates for any election. Yakme (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Delete: The news about this new coalition had been entered by myself into the pages of the member parties, but it seemed enough to me. The page is premature (like the pages about the other left-wing alliances born in recent days), a mention in the pages of the parties that are part of it seems to me sufficient at the moment. In my opinion, when the alliances are consolidated, there will be enough sources and they will present a list for the elections, it will be the right time to create the page. Creating a page on a newly formed alliance is too early, political agreements in Italy are too often aleatory. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG; WP:CRYSTAL applies. If this was an alliance between major parties, then it could potentially be kept even with limited sourcing. However, all 4 parties here are minor fringe parties, so we can't look past the dearth of sources. Curbon7 (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. This is hardly a case of crystal balling. The establishment of this coalition of encyclopedic parties is a fact. --Checco (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Broncoviz. Of course it is a short article for the moment, but most likely it will inevitably be expanded upon in due course.--Autospark (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Delete - Out of four sources, three are primary and one is a local (city) newspaper. The article therefore lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and makes it not notable. Also, the alliance was created less than a month ago, so the voice suffers recentism. As alternative, I would consider to make the article a draft and publish it only when more secondary sources will be available. P1221 (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• Draftify or Delete as WP:TOOSOON, we don't (yet) have sufficient Independent references (independent also refers to the content not just corporate links) and all the content appears to originate from the topic organization. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

{{clear}}

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.